NHS Doctors refused evacuation from Sudan by British Government - DISGUSTING!

[Raggletagglegypsy]

Shameful and shocking that NHS doctors should be turned away from evacuation flights from Sudan, simply because they have British residency, but are not British nationals. Just watching Newsnight on catchup and I was so enraged that I couldn't keep watching. I really hope that this matter has been put right since Newsnight aired yesterday. A medic who served the British people at Manchester Royal Infirmary through the pandemic was escorted out of the airport where he had arrived for evacuation, wanting to return to his work as a registrar. There are apparently over 20 doctors known to be in a similar position (having visited families for Eid - many with young children). The doctor who was interviewed described the situation as "disappointing" - I would use stronger vocabulary.
WE SHOULD ALL BE RAISING THIS WITH OUR MPs TODAY!

Not trying to stir the pot. Residency is fine. All residents. Not the ones you decide have the right kind.

I am just interested that apparently British doctors nobly serve the country while singing God Save the Queen, while foreign doctors don't. Not my experience of the NHS. Several of the British born doctors I know have gone to Australia.

Another thing is I've seen different version of this story elsewhere. Some say they were turned away and sent home. Some just said there was no space to wait. Etc.
At the same time we also have Germany complaining that the British barged in and ruined their rescue efforts.

As a PP pointed out repatriating Sudanese citizens from their own country might have other consequences, etc. We don't know the full story

They dot serve, they do jobs well paid bloody jobs.

You repatriate British citizens first, they are Sudanese citizens who made stupid decisions to actually go there.

Your post is full of how doctors are better than anyone because they 'serve' so you do place them above others that is clear.

Well nobody has said that. In fact, as I stated this whole attitude of 'service' is damaging to doctors as it's used as an excuse not to pay them what they are worth.

I said that doctors giving up their time for FREE. Like Doctors Without Borders. Are serving. Working in war zones, sleeping in tents, etc. Equally those who work for charities etc on a 'token' pay.

Just taking a job in another country isn't serving. Whether it's a white Doctor in the UK going to Singapore, an Iranian doctor going to the UK, whatever. Of course you may say that if said Iranian chooses to stay in their own country and risk their lives, admist the Taliban then yeah. But not someone from a comfy place like Malaysia or Singapore, going to the UK.

Not all 'foreign' countries are a big lump you know.

Exactly this!
It's a job. Like the IT people, project managers all foreign have come to the UK for a job.

Now if you think doctors are underpaid etc that's a diff story but it has nothing to do with having repatriation rights over others of the same visa. Nope. You're indirectly implying that those who don't work for the NHS are rightfully turned away.

@Againstmachine Actually, when it comes to this evacuation process, I think I would place someone with British residency, who normally lives and works here, above a Sudanese dual national, British passport-holder, who does not normally live and work in Britain.

Doctors are public servants. They do serve. Fact. The thread is not about how much they are paid. Although they are not paid enough or the British ones wouldn't all be going abroad, would they?

I don't think doctors are superior beings. If you read my post I said I am bothered by humans in general and that is part of my concern about not repatriating doctors domiciled in the UK. We need them to keep other humans alive. Literally. I don't care what passport they have.

Ah, but then on the other thread people were complaining that this is racist too! There were a number of reports of dual national holders trying to get out despite being Sudanese but haven't lived in the UK for years.

It's very complex. There's too much that meets the eye to be 'disgusted' as a knee jerk reaction.

I will also say it's a question of size. Sudan doesn't have that many, so evacuating everyone is fine. Again taking Malaysia as an example - there are so many Malaysians resident here for such a small country (more than, say Thai or Vietnamese) it would take several planes.

**Malaysia is a safe country, but just for arguments sake.,

Nope the Government has a duty to citizens ahead of any other nationalities, it's part of being a citizen.

To expect them to put Sudanese citizens ahead is plain stupid.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/who-the-fcdo-can-support-abroad

Ah, but then on the other thread people were complaining that this is racist too! There were a number of reports of dual national holders trying to get out despite being Sudanese but haven't lived in the UK for years.

If you have dual citizenship you do not get consular/embassy services whilst in the country you also hold nationality of. It's not racist or xenophobic, it's international law.

If you have dual citizenship you do not get consular/embassy services whilst in the country you also hold nationality of. It's not racist or xenophobic, it's international law.

And it is on the website, in black and white. But they do make exceptions. Which again is stated.

“As a British national, you can receive our assistance even if you do not normally live in the UK. However we cannot help British nationals (overseas) of Chinese ethnic origin travelling or living in China, Hong Kong or the Macao Special Administrative Regions.”

So there are exceptions… people need to understand what their legal rights are depending on their exact circumstances before travelling.
The government does make exceptions in certain instances, especially with dual national holders and residents. But it is not a legal right. So it is always going to be emotive.
And if they set a precedent then they end up having to make similar exceptions in the future. Because the press and public put pressure.

But this whole doctor thing can be easily spun the other way into a sort of NHS is collapsing, UK desperate for medical workers, shopping in unstable regions for them, stealing their doctors when they desperately need some in a crisis. Anyone with any medical experience welcome back to the UK as heroes however tenuous your ties….

Did you mean to quote @AgainstMachine?

As the thread demonstrated 'international law' means nothing to people claiming that things should be done (or otherwise) because they're 'morally right'. Hence why as in the quoted post, and also the premise of this entire thread (as I recall the article was about Sudanese doctors)

Actually dual citizenship in itself is a bit of a misnomer. As @DogInATent says, it's international law that you do not have more rights than your fellow citizens in a country where you are a citizen through having another passport. You don't have the rights of the country plus other rights. On the other hand, in the UK, you are not a lesser citizen either. So a British person who is also Sudanese, is not less British than a British person who is not Sudanese. Not in the eyes of the law anyway. In the eyes of some posters, they are.

Exactly. But it's a gray area and as @Intergalacticcatharsis 'exceptions' are made in the case of repatriation.

The most 'clear-cut' would be a dual national (or otherwise) married to a British national, ordinarily resident in the UK. Residency exceptions may be for permanent residents (ILR).

The thing about 'dual nationals' is that should they get out of the country on their own steam they can walk into any of the countries of their nationality and live as a citizen, be entitled to benefits etc. That's a bit different from 'consular help' to get them out in the first place.

You do have less rights now as you can be stripped of UK citizenship and deported to a country you might never even have visited, if you have dual citizenship. There have been some quite sad examples of this.

’I saw the incredible job the French military were doing in helping evacuate all nationalities via Djibouti. That used to be us before insular dickheadery became the norm.’

True.

So when people talk about someone serving in the military what does it mean in your world given they’re doing paid jobs.

Luckily, I can't imagine what it's like to come from a war-torn country where a visit to family back home is a risky activity that needs to be thought through and balanced between benefit and possible disaster. But I don't think people should shout about the shitty Tory government and the sanctified NHS as if that nullify both those risks taken and those demanded of British soldiers in order to help them. Doctors visiting family aren't more 'worthy' of saving than taxi drivers visiting family. Those news reports seem politically motivated to me.

At what point are you and others going to realise that your opinion is not only wrong but DANGEROUS. Under international law we have the right to be allowed to safe passage to evacuate our own citizens. Reciprocal agreements with other countries enable us to also lend aid and assistance to citizens of partner countries if we are able to do so. Sudan is not a member of any of those agreements. And even if it was we cannot remove a citizen of that country from that country with impunity. This person is a citizen of Sudan. And he has done himself no favours by going to the press because he has now highlighted the fact that there is an "ask" of the British government to remove citizens of Sudan from Sudan - something that paints a target on our troops and planes if the people armed to the teeth choose to take it that way. Which they have every right to do, much as you may dislike them and what they stand for - it is their country and their citizens. The defintion of "repatriate" is "to bring/send someone back to their own country". It is not to take people, no matter how "worthy" the reason, from their own country and take them somewhere else, even with their agreement.

What you and others are arguing is putting our troops and other British citizens at greater risk than they already are. And the kerfuffle that this person has kicked up will have been seen in Sudan as well, so they now know who he is, that he is attempting to leave the country; and that probably others will be doing the same thing. You don't think they will now be watching for them? That puts them all at greater risk too.

I am sorry for all the people - especially the Sudanese people - who are caught up in this tragedy. But that does not justify throwing caution to the wind and putting people at greater risk by trampling over international law. If we cannot be trusted to abide by those laws, then we have no right to expect others to. And we cannot pick and choose the laws we like when it suits our emotional responses. Until, and unless, the UN intervenes in Sudan, we have no authority to remove Sudanese citizens for any reason, or to otherwise protect them.

That's a colloquial term specific to that job. Maybe from the days of 'military service' (related to conscription)? There are numerous other special words such as 'service record', 'service length' etc.

Similar terms are also used in the civil service (SERVICE), an umbrella for varied professions from HMRC top brass to driving instructors. They are 'employees of the Crown', but that's all.

What you are asking is the emotional loading of the term 'to serve', meaning that somebody deserves special consideration. Given that the dictionary definition of 'serve' is simply to carry out duties on behalf of another party.

To which my reply was I would extend said consideration to those who had gone out of their way, towards their own detriment. Giving the example of voluntary service.

I am all for free speech but what would be good is if there were a responsibility on journalists and publishers to actually have to state the law below these kind of emotive articles they publish.

Totally agree. I noticed on Twitter that a 'context' box was added under a BBC article (on a different subject) which gave readers the chance to add the facts. Great idea, and shaming for them that they need it.

Yup ☹️

It’s all about feelingz these days. Actual facts seem beyond most media and public. Taking a job in the NHS because you don’t want to work in the country that trained you doesn’t make you special.